BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.190/2008

Between

Complainant : Joy O.M. S/o Mathai

Oravalakudiyil (H)

Anaviratty P.O

Anavirattikara, Devikulam Taluk

(By Adv: V.V Sunny)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

S.M.L Finance Ltd.

Adimali P.O

Adimali

(By Adv: V.C Sebastian)

O R D E R

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

The complaint is filed against the unfair trade practice of a financial company.
 

Complainant is a resident of Adimali. He availed a loan from the opposite party for purchasing an autorikshaw. The loan was taken on 18.04.2008. Complainant bought an autorickshaw Ape Passenger. As per hire purchase agreement, the monthly installment payment is Rs. 4,408/- each. At the time of agreement, he had paid Rs.32,500/- in Joint Account of complainant and his mother. 3 blank cheques were also given to the opposite party. In addition to all these, he had signed many papers at the office of the opposite party. Complainant paid his first installment in that time itself, in the payment of second installment, there was a delay of one month. In the second payment, opposite party collected Rs.456/- from the complainant as fine. In the third installment also he became a defaulter. At that time the opposite party received Rs.500/- as fine. Complainant became confused and asked about the fine, directly and through letter to the opposite party. Opposite parties have no response. Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and filed a petition before this Forum.

2. The opposite party filed written version. In the written version, opposite party admitted the Hire Purchase Agreement and explained the installments. In the Hire Purchase Agreement between the opposite party and the complainant, the repayment was in 40 equal Instalments of Rs.4,408/- each. Opposite party denied the contention that they received 3 blank cheques from the complainant. The complainant had signed several papers, all are necessary for Hire Purchase Agreement. As per Hire Purchase Agreement, the company have right to collect fine from the complainant. If the complainant become defaulater, the company have to face fnancial difficulties. In order to overcome that, the company receives fine from defaulters. At the time of third payment, company explained details of interest to the complainant, that is why they never give any reply to the notice of the complainant. Company received fine only according to the Hire Purchase Ageement.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4.Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5.The POINT :- The complainant entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the opposite party.Ext.R5 is the copy of the agreement. In Ext.R5, 19^th clause reads about default payment. But the rate of interest is not mentioned in Ext.R5. The complainant is a defaulter in his second and third installments, is an admitted fact. In the deposition, complainant states that he is ready to pay reasonable rate of interest. Complainant made his payment directly to opposite party's office and not through bank. So no chance to collect bank charges from him. Opposite party collected Rs.892/- from the complainant as fine, is an exorbitant amount. Opposite party's oral and documentary evidence were not proved that they have the right to collect such an amount from the complainant. It is an unfair trade practice of opposite party. As a financial enterprise, the opposite party had suffered financial difficulties due to default in payments. So we think that they have to collect Rs.100/- as fine from defaulters. The complainant have to pay Rs.100/- as fine for his default payment. Ext.P1 letter is very important one, complainant enquired about the rate of fine in this letter, but the opposite party never given any written reply to Ext.P1. This act of opposite party is a deficiency in service.
 

In the result, we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the excess amount collected from the complainant that is, Rs.892/-. The opposite party can charge Rs. 100/- for each default. The opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as cost and Rs.1,500/- as compensation for this petition, within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2009

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - O.M Joy

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - Noushad N.P

Exhibits :

On the side of Complainant :

Ext. P1 - Copy of Notice, dated 21-07-2008 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

Ext. P2 - Postal receipt of the Notice, dated 21-07-2008

Ext. P3 - Certificates of Delivery of article issued by the Postmaster Adimali

Ext. P4 - Receipt for fine Rs. 456/- dated 19-07-2008

Ext. P5 - Receipt dated 21-08-2008

Ext. P6 - Receipt for an amount of Rs. 32,500/- paid by the Complainant dated 17-04-08

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext. R1(series) - Copy of Application for Loan

Ext. R2 - Copy of Application for Hire Purchase

Ext. R3 - Copy of Terms and conditions of Hire Purchase agreement

Ext. R4 - Copy of Agreement dated 18-04-2008

Ext. R5(series) - Copy of Hire Purchase Agreement